The Burr in the Burgh

"What's a liberal conservative?" you ask. Well, first of all, let me say that using such labels is pretty squishy. They seldom communicate as well as we think. In fact, I don't usually use terms such as "liberal" or "conservative" when talking about current trends in Lutheranism because I frankly don't think they're that useful. So, you see, my use of the term "liberal conservative" is a bit tongue in cheek in the first place.

"Liberal Conservative" is my own personal designation for Lutheran Christians who consider themselves conservative but who only wish to conserve beliefs and practices they grew up with, regardless of actual Lutheran theology. Such dear folks are conservative in the sense of wanting to keep things as they know them. But they are liberal in the sense that what they know may actually be a departure from historic Lutheranism. I suspect all of us are susceptible to this to some degree.

• So if you think it's "too Roman Catholic" to make the sign of the cross, you might be a liberal conservative.


• Similarly, if you think a crucifix is papistic and that Lutherans should prefer a barren cross, you might be a liberal conservative.
  


• If you love to sing Methodo-bapti-costal hymns and revival songs such as What a Friend We Have in Jesus and Amazing Grace but can't stomach classic Lutheran hymns, you might be a liberal conservative.


• If you think "real" Lutheran congregations must have an American flag in the chancel, you might be a liberal conservative.


• If you refuse to go to individual confession/absolution, you might be a liberal conservative.


• If you oppose offering the Eucharist every Lord's Day, you might be a liberal conservative.

There are well-meaning, devoted Lutheran pastors and laity who consider themselves good conservative Lutherans but who ignore, reject and sometimes even OPPOSE sound Lutheran doctrine and practice because it's different than what they've always done.

Most of these discrepencies would be addressed with a simple reading of the Lutheran Confessions. Ad Fontes. I only picked the above examples because they seem to be pretty common amongst LCMS folks. Nor are they equally serious in nature.

I suppose the strict definition of a "conservative" is someone who doesn't want to change. Someone once asked me if I am a conservative Lutheran, and I said that depends on who is asking and what they mean. I don't think we should determine our beliefs and practices by the idiosyncracies of the past 100 years. I prefer terms such as confessional, traditional, historic or even classical.


P.S.
I write this as a pastor of a wonderful loving Lutheran congregation. None of these comments are intended to reflect negatively on my present church or anyone in particular. There haven't been any disputes to speak of over these kinds of issues in the whole time I've served here. It's intended as nothing more than a general critique of a mindset that seems to be prevelant in the LCMS at large.

Sphere: Related Content

I was pretty impressed by this BLISTERING critique of The Da Vinci Code by Robert Scheaffer in The Skeptic magazine. Take and read.

Some delectable quotes include:

This is spectacularly false.
Ludicrous
Highly misleading
Simply absurd


And my personal favorite:

In matters of historical analysis, it is not possible to be more wrong than this.

Sphere: Related Content

I have recommended the little volume The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction by Paul Maier several times in the past. If you want a brief handbook to help make sense of the Da Vinci Code nonsense, this is the one to get.

But today, I also located this awesome website created by Westminster Theological Seminary. Go check it out: The Truth About Da Vinci.

Sphere: Related Content

...or have recenlty consumed.

BOOKS



MUSIC



FILM

Sphere: Related Content

“Praise for United 93”
May 1, 2006
From Darren Eliker

Saturday, my wife and I went to see United 93, a movie better described as ‘long overdue’ as opposed to ‘too soon’. While I understand the angst some folks feel at the anticipation of reliving the horrid events of 9/11, I have very little sympathy with the ‘too soon’ crowd.

If the families of the Flight 93 have already seen it twice, approved of it, and are asking people to go see it, the least one can do in honor of their loved ones is to accommodate that request.

Writer/director Paul Greengrass has done a marvelous job in creating a true tribute to these heroic passengers. Though he calls himself a liberal, I have to give a lot of credit to him for resisting the liberal tendency to view the events through the lens of an agenda, or to comment on them.

Rather, he permits them to have a greater impact by letting the power of the story stand on its own, allowing you the viewer to feel what you wish as the events unfold, without taking political sides.

Greengrass wisely chose actors with no visible profile to play the roles. One remarkable thing is that I can’t even recall any of the passengers’ names being mentioned during the film. Their anonymity is one of the most powerful statements.

I was impressed that we were not given sympathetic back-stories on the terrorists. There is no attempt to soften them or try to understand their actions, as it should be. These were monsters and there is no way around that.

My wife brought extra tissues in preparation for what we believed would be an emotional experience. And since I’m a sap when it comes to tales of heroism, I was glad of her forethought. But we found we didn’t need them.

While we felt the claustrophobic intensity of being crammed into that plane, the emotions we felt during the passengers’ rebellion was not sadness. It was a bit of anger, but anger mixed with a proud sense of, ‘Yeah, this is what Americans do. We fight back.’

It was nice to see United 93 take second at the box office. RV starring Robin Williams beat it, so it’s clear that many people just wanted an easy laugh this weekend. But it had a strong showing and that was something.

So do yourself a favor and see it. In fact, since it’s May 1st, go out and have dinner, see the film, then go shopping and stick a finger in the eye of these ignorant immigration protestors who have no right to make demands on the USA. Instead, celebrate those who capture its true spirit…the brave passengers of United 93.

Sphere: Related Content

I love Touchstone magazine. You should all subscribe to it and read every word. It is ecumenical in a good way. The writers are mostly Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican with a few Lutherans and occasional Protestant-types. Not that there aren't important doctrinal differences here. There surely are. But there is much common ground that Confessional Lutherans need to examine. This journal deals with issues of substance, both cultural and theological, from a refreshingly traditionalist perspective.

In any case, I just noticed that they've expanded their online archives. And since I'm terrible at keeping and organizing old magazine, this is good news for me.

I just located an old column that I recalled about a gay man studying to become an Episcopal priest. He says that he was in hell. The struggle between those in his church who were affirming his deviant behavior and his conscience which wouldn't stop pestering him. This is a valuable 5 minute read.

Sphere: Related Content

Not long ago, I was reading a book by Daniel Preus,Why I Am a Lutheran: Jesus at the Center. And he said that one thing that always challenges or frustrates him as a pastor is when you ask your flock, "Are you going to go to heaven?" and they answer "I hope so." He makes the point that we can know; we can be certain. And that's not because we have perfect faith that never wavers, but because God's promises are sure.

There is another side to this coin too, similarly related. When you ask Christians if they are going to go to heaven, many will say "Yes, definitely." But then ask them, "Why?" Some will say things like, "Because I love Jesus and gave my heart to him." That's great. I'm glad YOU did that. But is that the reason why you are saved? Because YOU love Jesus and YOU gave yourself to him? Isn't the reason really because HE loves you and HE gave himself for you on the cross?

We are saved BY grace, THROUGH faith. Not BY our faith. In other words, salvation is God's gift to you through Christ. That's by grace alone. Martin Luther described faith as the open hand that receives the gift of God. We don't have faith in our faith. We have faith in Christ and him crucified.

Sphere: Related Content

Maybe you've seen the latest television ad for the United Church of Christ. If not, go here. The UCC is one of the most liberal denominations in America and also one of the fastest shrinking. If they are not growing numerically, it's not for lack of being inclusive.

On the one hand, I see their point. God loves all people. He desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. The Church must reach out to the marginalized and downtrodden. That's a good message.

However, there is a problem. In this new ad - a parody of snobby churches - homeless people, handicapped people, racial minorities and a single mom with a fussy baby are all, literally, bounced out of the church, presumably for being undesirable. There is also a flagrantly gay couple who get the boot.

The implication is that the UCC - unlike us meanies - is godlike because . . . (drumroll) "God Doesn't Reject People" and neither do they.

But they're comparing apples to oranges. Truly God is not a respecter of persons and he does not favor or disfavor people on the basis of race, gender or class. But the implication that sin does not alienate us from the Father is quite untrue.

The Scriptures are actually pretty clear that on the Day of Judgment, God will reject those who dwell in their sins.

Jesus will say,"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt.25)."

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Mt.7)"

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor.6)."

Call me goofy, but I think the words "depart from me," and "away from me" qualify as words of rejection.

Why is this a problem? Because it is unloving to give people false hope. In fact, the false hope that God will accept you and receive you even though you remain in sin (the flagrant gay couple) is the ultimate cruelty. It could mean the difference btwn heaven and hell. We can't pronounce absolution where there is no repentance.

We must preach the cross of Jesus Christ. And we must preach it in the sense of propitiation. Your sins are forgiven BECAUSE Jesus turned aside the wrath of God by his own sacrificial death. Saving faith necessarily includes repentance. The words of Jesus above suggest the only alternative.

Sphere: Related Content